Military

 

Arab and Muslim media pessimistically braced for what was perceived as a war--not against terror--but "against Afghanistan."  Many took note of, and even praised, President Bush's actions and words making the distinction between Islam and fanaticism.  Nevertheless, they remained convinced that the U.S. is bent on "revenge" for the WTC and Pentagon terrorist attacks and may ultimately propel the world toward "a war between civilizations."  Disinformation and denial underpinned an editorial framework in which Usama bin Ladin's culpability was widely dismissed.  Anti-Israeli and anti-American conspiracy theories from Morocco to Malaysia cast the Mossad--or American home-grown terrorists--as the culprits.  In these turnabout scenarios, it was U.S. law enforcement officials and the Western media who were in denial, or even in collusion with "the real" terrorists.  Some saw geopolitical objectives behind U.S. efforts to build an international coalition against terrorism.  Within this context, the U.S. was accused of using the attacks as a pretext for imposing a pro-Israel Pax Americana in the Mideast and for dominating Central Asia.  Thus, the U.S. campaign was portrayed as a "crusade" not only to contain Islam but also "to control oil, gas and water" resources around the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea.  Regional analysis of editorial comment from Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) members follows:

 

ARAB COUNTRIES:  Domestic Saudi Arabian dailies stood alone in supporting a "firm anti-terrorism stance" and "cooperation" with the U.S.  Bitterness over the Gulf War legacy of Arab disunity and the conviction that the U.S. is first and foremost Israel's ally rather than an honest broker, formed the core of widespread editorial resistance to joining the coalition.  Sharia principles, and the "vagueness" of coalition goals were also cited.  Writers were loath to see Muslim fight Muslim in a U.S.-led military confrontation.  Some editorialists contended that Arab governments' "variable and hypocritical positions" on the coalition were symptomatic of a broad opinion gap between them and their publics.  Egyptian dailies were the most prone to see an Israeli or American hand behind the 9/11 attacks. 

EUROPE:  Pro-Islamic outlets in Turkey reflected themes seen outside Europe, depicting the U.S. as positioning itself in Central Asia as a first step toward "consolidating a New World Order."  An observer in Tirana urged Albanian cooperation in the terrorism fight, but worried about how Muslims the world over would react to a war in Afghanistan. 

EAST ASIA:  Again, Muslim papers in Malaysia and Indonesia highlighted themes found elsewhere in the world:  The U.S. must establish UBL's culpability before acting, the U.S. is angling to reshape regional alliances in the Mideast and Central Asia.  Israeli conspiracy theories continued to resonate here.

AFRICA:  Nigeria's Kaduna-based papers maintained that while the U.S. has the right to defend itself, it should re-examine policies that have "discriminated against the developing nations and helped promote terrorism."

 

EDITORS:  Gail Burke and Stephen Thibeault

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 68 editorials from 18 Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) member countries, September 17-27.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

BAHRAIN:  "Arab, Islamic Regimes Dance To The Beat Of America's War Drums"

 

Semi-official Arabic-language Al-Ayam ran this view (9/26) by Abdulmu'em Al-Shirawi:  "I wish that our Arab and Islamic regimes, who dance to the beat of America's war drums, would tell us who this war is against.  I pray to God and ask him not to give them a role in this big American lie....  The statements of the American Cowboy, who does not have political experience, are clear and do not need an explanation or interpretation, starting with his stupid announcement that it will be a 'crusade,' then saying he wants Bin laden 'dead or alive' and ending with his statement that the war against bin Ladin and the Taliban is just the beginning of a long war which will include all those who will be categorized as 'terrorists,' according to the 'Americaneili'--I mean 'American-Israeli'--definition of terrorism. The goal is clear and it was reinforced when Netanyahu was asked to appear before the Congress to explain to them what is terrorism and who are the terrorists!"

 

"Bin Ladin's Profession Of Innocence Ignored"

 

Semi-independent Arabic-language Akhbar Al-Khalij ran this comment (9/23) by Hafedh Al-Shaikh: "Following the incidents in New York and Washington and after the false accusation (of Bin Laden), Osama Bin Laden issued from his hiding place a reasonable statement announcing his innocence and that he had nothing to do with the incidents....  That statement was buried on inside pages and did not get the publicity it deserves....  Are the United States and its allies the only honest and true people, especially when it comes to indicting Shaikh Osama Bin Laden?  How can the Arab regimes justify to their people burying a statement by Shaikh Osama and statements by national and Arab organizations from all over the Arab world (criticizing U.S. plans) while they promote the enemy's propaganda."

 

"Sharia Forbids Killing Innocent People"

 

Semi-independent Arabic-language Akhbar Al-Khalij published this view (9/23) by Hussein Saleh: "Our great religion, our culture and our history do not support or justify killing innocent people. What happened to the innocent people in America is not acceptable at all. Our feelings toward the American victims is the same feeling we have toward the Palestinians killed by the criminal Sharon with advanced American weapons. We do sympathize and feel sad for what happened in America. But why doesn't the American Administrations, especially the administration of George Bush, feel sorry for those killed by the Zionists in cold blood? Don't the Americans realize that their country still bombs Iraq and kills innocent people there? We, while sympathizing with the American victims, cannot forget or ignore our martyrs and cannot forgive the criminals who killed them."

 

EGYPT:  "A Serious Incident"

 

Senior columnist Mahmoud Moawad commented (9/27) in leading pro-government moderate Al Ahram the on the Israeli stand when it refused to hold Arafat-Peres meetings more than five times:  "The question which remains is: Why did Israel take this stand?  Is it because the U.S. has excluded her from the alliance? Or is it due to the suspicions which were raised when 4,000 Jews who worked at the World Trade Center did not come to work on black Tuesday? Or is it because of the Jews who were arrested today while taking photos of the burning building and expressing their joy with the fires and the killing of the victims?"

 

"Half A Word"

 

Influential and popular writer Ahmad Ragab wrote in centrist pro-government Al Akhbar (9/27): "The latest events in the United States  demonstrate without doubt that the security measures in the airports are 'nil.' This fact calls for the reopening of the investigations in the crash of the Egyptian airplane."

 

"The Forbidden"

 

Senior columnist Magdy Mehana, writing in liberal opposition Wafd, said (9/27): "What is the fate of $1,500 billion of Arab assets in American and Western banks? What will the United States decide in this matter? Will this money be confiscated after Bush's decision to confiscating bin Ladin's money in the United States and also the money of 27 American organizations suspected of having a connection with bin Ladin while all are Arab and Muslim organizations? The Arabs and Muslims in the United States are afraid that the U.S. administration might expand this matter. Will the time come when all the Arab money abroad be confiscated under the pretext of drying up the resources of terrorism?"

 

"Double Standards"

 

Senior columnist Salah Montasser commenting on the arrest of Iraqis, Pakistanis and Israeli young people for their joking a few hours after the attack and taking pictures of the two towers after they fell.  Only the Israelis were released while all others remain under arrest wrote in leading pro-government moderate Al Ahram (9/26): "It is the same crime for all, and the law should be applied fairly to all; yet, in the midst of the crisis confronting the United States, it did not forget Israel is the exception to the law and so only the five Israeli citizens were released."

 

"Words"

 

Senior columnist Mohamed Abd El Moneim Murad commented on a U.S. call for countries to either join it or be considered allies of terrorism in centrist pro-government Al Akhbar (9/26): "But the problem is that the invitation is too broad without any requirement to give details or reasons and regardless of whether the terrorists are groups or individuals.  So how can an Arab, Moslem peaceful country, like Egypt, for example, join in a vague coalition? A coalition which is vague in its enemies, aims, the whereabouts of those terrorist enemies, their supporters and their allies on the world-wide map?  And thus Egypt finds itself confronting an undefined enemy and the countries which might be struck could be, at least from our point of view, innocent or even wrongly hit in the name of international justice."

 

"Cooperation Of All Countries--Not Alliance Of Some"

 

Leading pro-government Al Ahram's Dr.Ossama Al-Ghazaly Harb said (9/22): "There is no way to compare the American reaction toward the attacks on Washington and New York to the American reaction to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. The entire international community, while it understands the U.S. right to respond to the terrorist acts, will also accept an international collective response since the danger this time is international terrorism which is not limited to a certain region. Thus it is more logical to formulate an international mobilization rather than an alliance.  Forming an alliance can create differences with a number of countries which may weaken the legitimacy of deterrence and impugn its credibility.  Even though many countries have considerable sympathy with the calamity of the American people, including the Egyptian government and people, some people insist that there is a difference between the nations and their governments. For instance, the Qatari newspaper Al Raya sees a rift between the regime and public opinion in Egypt over Black Tuesday. Undoubtedly, this implies a simplification of facts and failure to differentiate between the criticism of many Egyptians over an American bias towards Israel and the immediate and objective Egyptian rejection of all kinds of terrorism as barbaric backwardness harking back to the dark ages (of ignorance, or "jahalia".) In the meantime, some countries are taking a variable and hypocritical position while in fact lending support to terrorist groups....  Despite the fine initiative of President Bush's warning people against these generalizations a Copt was killed in LA. It is our right to be concerned about the spread of hysterical concepts based on ignorance. Such circumstances do not permit formation of an alliance and make it difficult for many countries to participate in an international front against these terrorist acts."

 

JORDAN:  "How The U.S. Patrons Terrorism And Corruption Important"

 

Columnist Rakan Al-Majali wrote in center-left, influential Arabic-language Al-Dustour (9/27): "A common Arabic proverb says:  'Some good may come out of harm,' and it applies to President Bush's decision to freeze the assets of 27 organizations that he described as terrorist.  It is interesting that all these organizations, that claim to be enemies of the United States, should have deposited their assets in financial organizations in the United States, as do all political leaders, big businessmen, mafia leaders, and money launderers. We hope sincerely that the president does not stop at freezing the assets of terrorists; we hope that the United States should bear its moral responsibility to fight corruption, a scourge just as terrible as terrorism.  Unfortunately, we believe that it does not want to fight corruption and exploitation."

 

"What Kind Of Ally Is Israel?"

 

Chief Editor Nabil Al-Sharif wrote on the op-ed page of center-left, influential Arabic-language Al-Dustour (9/26):  "The United States got used to the idea of considering Israel its strongest and most important ally in the region.  American politicians bored us with talk about the principles of the U.S. policy in the region that is based on two foundations: Israel and oil.  Is not time for the American officials to re-evaluate the importance of Israel for the United States and its role and the U.S. ally in the region?  What kind of ally is Israel when the United States has to ask it to stay away in times of crises, like what happened in the Gulf War and is happening now?.  The Washington and New York bombings are going to force the Americans to ask hundreds of questions once this stage of grief, anger and retaliation subsides.  One of the most important questions they have to ask is about the relationship with Israel.  This relationship serves only Israel.  What is the interest of the American people in an ally that they want to be rid of in times of crises?"

 

"The Undeclared Objectives Of The Declared War"

 

Columnist Mohammad Naji Amayreh penned this on the op-ed page of semi-official, influential Arabic-language Al-Ra'i (9/25):  "Although Washington's objectives, starting with bin Laden, then al-Qa'eda organization, followed by Taliban, have become well known, these objectives, logically, are too small in comparison with the ongoing military, political and economic preparations that are taking place in a number of different areas.  Therefore, logic poses questions about the real objectives of this war.  If the American objective was limited to punishing Taliban or handing over bin Ladin 'dead or alive' or capturing the al-Qa'eda organization, then Washington would not need this massive assembly of forces or this show of force on the land, in the air and at sea.  Therefore, what is the objective and why?  Why rule out the idea that there are American interests in that region that required the permanent presence of American forces?  Isn't that region rich in oil and couldn't this oil be an undeclared American objective?  Furthermore, that region encompasses countries that have nuclear or mass destruction weapons, like India and Pakistan, China and Russia.  Doesn't Washington need an extensive military presence in that region just in case?  Americans have often repeated that they are defending themselves, that they do not need the cover of or authorization from the United Nations to launch war against terrorism.  Yet, they seek to establish an international alliance when they cannot present sufficient evidence to the international community about bin Ladin's involvement."

 

KUWAIT:  "Bin Laden And His Accomplices"

 

Former minister and former MP Ali Ahmad Al-Baghli wrote in independent Al-Qabas (9/25):  "Although bin Ladin opposed the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia, he never told us how he planned to evict the Iraqi oppressors who occupied Kuwait killing, looting, and raping.  This is something we have never seen the American and foreign 'occupiers' do....  This is the difference between the American 'occupiers' and Bin Ladin, who horrified the world with bombings in Africa, Khobar, Aden, and now finally Washington and New York."

 

"Is Terrorism An Arab Trademark?"

 

Ayed Al-Manaa wrote in independent Al-Watan (9/24):  "There has been no clear cut evidence that the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania are Arab terrorists.  We wonder why suspicions and investigations other nationalities and races?  We are not claiming Arabs or Muslims are not members of terrorist organizations.  This, however, does not mean that our terrorists are the sole enemies of the United States....    Has terrorism become an Arab trademark?"      

 

LEBANON:  "One Arab Language--When?"

 

An editorial by Rajeh Khoury in moderate, anti-Syrian An-Nahar said (9/27): "Where does resistance begin and where does terrorism end?  This is an eternal question in the Middle East, and recently it became a nightmare!...  Obviously, there is a great difference between the Arab and Western understanding of terrorism and resistance...  The problem is that even Arabs do not have the same understanding of terrorism and resistance....  President Mubarak unintentionally linked resistance against Israeli occupation to terrorism when he remarked that without a solution for the Palestinians...we could witness a new generation of terrorists....  On the other hand, the Saudi Foreign Minister remarked that Israeli violence, and the fact that so far there is no solution for the Palestinian cause, is a justification that is being exploited by terrorism....  There is a big and dangerous difference between those two remarks; for this reason the Arabs really need to speak the same language."

 

"Bush, The New Pharaoh"

 

An editorial by Charles Ayoub in sensationalist Ad-Diyar (9/27): "God, who is our creator, did not say either you are with me or with Satan.  He left us the freedom to believe in any way and in anything we want, whether through the Bible or the Koran or Buddha....  President Bush did not leave humanity a choice.  He said either you are with the United States or with terrorism.  There are many around the world who do not agree with the plan he decided to implement, but are also against terrorism and bin Laden....  Perhaps President Bush should ask what it is that pushed young Arab Muslims to drive civilian airplanes into windows and apartments?...  The answer is that American planes, flown by Israeli pilots, are shelling the windows of houses in villages like Ramallah....  We are not sympathizing with bin Ladin...but the United States should realize...that day after day the world's sympathy could diminish, especially if civilians die as a result of its forthcoming retaliation....  Justice should not only take place in The Hague or in American courts.  Justice is stopping injustice in the Arab world."

 

"Our Turn Will Come Tomorrow"

 

An editorial by Walid Husseini in commercial pro-Syrian tabloid Al-Kifah Al-Arabi said (9/25): "The Ambassador of the United States enlightened us when he told us, through our colleague newspaper As-Safir, about what his country intends to do.  Vincent Battle says: 'We hope this is the beginning of an unprecedented worldwide commitment to fighting terrorists, no matter whom they target, no matter what cause they profess, no matter where they hide.'  He moved terrorism...from terrorists to their causes whatever these causes are, equating the just with the unjust.  This means that the 'Palestinian cause' is one of the targets....  We did not need the ambassador's prophecies to know what awaits us tomorrow....  We should not be distracted by the next live TV coverage of America's war in Afghanistan....  All the American messages have our address, and are eventually coming our way."

 

MOROCCO:  "The Question Of Terrorism"

 

Front-page daily column in government coalition PPS Party, Arabic-language Bayane Al Youm said (9/27), "From the first glance at the U.S. list of terrorist organizations, it becomes clear that all organizations are Arab and Muslims which confirms that America is pushed to look for a pretext to show its teeth in the face of Arabs and Muslims....  Why were not Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Benyamin Netanyahu and the list is long of Israeli leaders whose hands are still stained with the blood of Palestinian children and women included in the list?... Why weren't other European and American organizations, and others from the Far East not included on that list? Does America know that many organizations and individuals considered  today as terrorist were fed by the United States?"

 

"U.S. Reprisals: Weak Chance For Success And Big Risks For A Larger Escalation"

 

Front page-commentary signed by Mimoune Habrish in Al Bayane held (9/27), "If fundamentalists were the real perpetrators of the two attacks, a fact yet to be proven, then they have achieved at least one of their goals: provoke a culture shock....  U.S. leaders risk to engage the Planet in a new cycle of violence nobody could measure its consequences."

 

"Adventurism"

 

A commentary signed by Kahlid Jamai in government coalition, Istiqlal Party, French-language L'Opinion (9/24), "In his speech, President Bush made a reference to Islam making a distinction between the good Muslims and the fanatic ones, a necessary distinction which will not stand for a long time if the U.S.' revenge  goes beyond certain limits....  On the American level, the creation of a Homeland Security Office is a dangerous decision because of the distrust in the American community....  Mr. Bush did not have the courage to recognize that Usama Bin Ladin and his men were trained and financed by the CIA under U.S. government directives....  Does Mr. Bush believe that lifting the embargo against Pakistan would win over the Pakistani people?  It is an illusion!  If Bush pursues his policy of revenge, he will cause a war between civilizations."

 

"America Takes World Hostage, Intends To Use New Crusade To Occupy Central Asia"

 

Independent, French-language economic and political weekly La Gazette du Maroc asked (9/24), "What America is preparing, no one knows with certainty.  Americans want to occupy the Central Asia because it is an area with risks and because it has energy resources....  The new international world is the Far West."

 

QATAR:  "The United States Should Set An Example"

 

Semi-independent Arabic-language Al-Watan held (9/23): "The whole world supports the right of the U.S. to hunt down those who committed the horrific attacks against Washington and New York.  However, those who sympathize with America want to emphasize that if a military operation were to take place, it should be done through proper United Nations channels.  The EU and America's allies from the Islamic world are urging Washington to operate within the framework of the UN.  The U.S. should serve as an example by abiding with international law and norms.  Any coalition not formed within the framework of the United Nations lacks legitimacy and credibility."

 

"Infinite Injustice"

 

Nora Al-Khater, columnist, Semi-independent Arabic-language Al-Sharq (9/23): "Vague, superior, arrogant, vane...these terms flash before us when we see the huge American army moving. The target is a country that harbors so called terrorists.  Yes, it was a horrific tragedy and the United States has the right to seek revenge for its victims, but the killer must be identified. Even though the Americans have said that the President did not mean to use the word 'crusade', we believe that what he is doing is, indeed, a crusade. The goal of this crusade is to control oil, gas, water, etc....  Americans have the right to seek revenge but Arabs and Muslims also have the right to seek revenge for their victims.  We wonder why Muslim resistance is considered terrorism while America's response is called revenge."

 

"This Crazy War!"

 

Ahmed Mansour, presenter with Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel, wrote in semi-independent Arabic Al-Sharq (9/24):  "The American 'launch' of a Third World War has unleashed a racist war against Arabs and Muslims.  Right after the list of Arab and Muslim suspects was released, a Western mob started a dirty retaliation against Arabs and Muslims.  Islamic centers, mosques,  and organizations were attacked.  More than 40,000 cases of assault against the Arabs in the United Staes have been reported.  Muslim women can not leave their homes.  Muslims and Arabs prefer not to speak in Arabic in public places.  All of these human rights violations are being practiced in the civilized world by the defender of freedom of religious beliefs.  President Bush has started a long, holy crusade against Arabs and Muslims."

 

"America Should Not Fight Israel's War"

 

Issa Al-Isaac wrote in semi-independent Al-Sharq (9/22): "Israel is trying to label all Palestinian and Islamic resistance groups as terrorist organizations.  Now more than ever we need a clear definition of terrorism.   Organizations who are resisting against (foreign) occupation should not be included on the American list of terrorist targets.  We urge the U.S. not to fall into Israel's trap.  The U.S. should not fight Israel's war against Palestinians under the cover of fighting terrorism.  The daily murder of innocent Palestinians is no different from killing innocent Americans in New York and Washington."

 

SAUDI ARABIA:  "Firm Anti-Terrorism Position"

 

Makkah-based, ultra-conservative Al-Nadwa held (9/27):  "King Fahd's assurance to President George Bush to work with the United States to eradicate terrorism was a wise stand and also thwarted attempts by the enemies of Islam, who have tried to portray the emerging international campaign against terrorism as if it were a campaign against Islam.  (This was) an image the terrorists liked and that was enhanced by the active Zionist propaganda attempting to place Islam in the cage of suspects.  The Kingdom's support for the United States, in particular at this critical moment, represents a major guarantee for the emerging campaign, that it is not against Islam but against terrorism....  While the Kingdom offers its cooperation to the United States to remove causes of tension in the region, it also means that the United States should move seriously.  It is high time to work out a final settlement for the Middle East crisis, so as not to give another excuse for the terrorists to embark on their brutal actions, blaming instability in the region."

 

"A Responsible Dialogue Between Riyadh And Washington"

 

Jeddah-based, moderate Okaz held (9/27):  "Certainly, the responsible and insightful dialogue, understanding, and substantial bilateral discussions between King Fahd and President George Bush on September 25 was a clear example of the process of coordination to activate the bases of mutual cooperation which have existed between the Kingdom and the United States for more than half a century."

 

"Taliban Confront Total Isolation"

 

London-based, pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat opined (9/26):  "The decision by Saudi Arabia to cut its diplomatic ties with the Taliban closed the circle of isolation....  The isolation of the Taliban is a clear message from the entire world that they do not have the right to be the spokesman for all of the Islamic world....  But the isolation of the Taliban does not mean that all Muslims in Afghanistan should also be isolated.  In reality, they have become the first victims of the Taliban.  For that reason we have to help them build their future in freedom and peace.... It is the duty of the international community to combat terrorism, but at the same time, it has a duty to support the Afghan people and preserve their future."

 

"The Afghan's Crisis And The Taliban's Responsibility"

 

Jeddah-based moderate Al-Bilad maintained (9/26): "Everybody, including the United States, agrees that the Afghan people are experiencing a real human disaster, but the question in the shadow of the current developments is: who is behind this disaster?...  The answer is quite clear, and the fingers point at the government of the Taliban, which created confusion and failed to consider the suffering of the Afghan people.... The Taliban bears the full responsibility and must realize that Afghanistan has become a center for attracting and training terrorists....  It would be better for the Taliban to listen to international demands to hand over the terrorists and destroy their network....  The Afghan people will certainly be the victims of the Taliban's rigid position if they continue to fail to listen to the calls of the international community and choose to be isolated from a world that has suffered greatly from terrorism."

 

"Source Of Terrorism"

 

Jeddah-based moderate English-language Saudi Gazette held (9/26): "The international community cannot think about establishing world peace and stability without first solving the Mideast problem.... (Saudi) Prince Abdullah said: 'The Palestinian issue, which concerns all Arabs and Muslims, is a source of instability in the region.'... Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's office showed conventional Zionist arrogance, when it said the premier would not meet (British Foreign Secretary) Straw during his visit to Israel.... The Kahan Commission established by the Israeli government found Sharon responsible for the (Sabra-Shatilla) genocide.... In its present war against terrorism, the United States is not expected to ignore this cause of global instability and terrorism....  Because Sharon is a veteran terrorist, his current position cannot grant him immunity from international law.  The world must capture and try him."

 

"Between Afghanistan And Israel"

 

London-based, pan-Arab, moderate Al-Hayat opined (9/23):  "The absence of Israel from the international coalition against terror reflects an embarrassing aspect of U.S. administration policy toward the 'Jihad' concept of the coming war in the Afghan mountains....   Whether this was an American decision not to irritate the feelings of the Arab and Islamic countries or a pre-arranged statement, nevertheless the result is that it serves Israeli interests, and that the coalition will do what Israel cannot do alone....  If the war were in fact against terror and its roots, with no distinctions, then Israel would be classified number one on the list of terrorist countries."

 

"The Arab's Image Corrected By Al-Omari"

 

Jeddah-based, moderate Al-Madina opined (9/23): "The Saudi pilot, Abdulaziz Al-Omari, who was hosted by CNN yesterday and to whom the FBI intends to apologize, is one of those who have been irritated because of the rashness of the American investigating bodies....  These bodies may be ready to apologize to him, but it is not only Mr. Al-Omari's case, it is also the state of the image of Arabs in the American media.  This image cannot be corrected unless the American media itself focuses on it, and until the victims of baseless accusations stand before the American justice system, demanding to be compensated for what has been done to them and to their families and homelands." 

 

Afghanistan's Last Chance"

 

London-based, moderate, English-language Arab News carried this op-Ed column, "Arab View" by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid (9/23): "The poor Afghans.  No other people have endured such ordeals as they have.  (After the Russian and Mujahedeen occupations) what remained was a land in ruin both metaphorically and actually.  The Taliban...closed all avenues leading to progress and reconstruction....  Overnight the country has become the focus of international attention, as the most powerful nation in the world deploys all its might to finish off what is arguably the weakest and the poorest....  On the other hand, Afghanistan can possibly emerge from its woes as a new country....  It might gain a new government committed to the welfare of the country."

 

SYRIA:  "What About Israel?"

 

Mohamed Khair Jamali, a commentator in government-owned Al-Thawra said (9/26):  "Calling to combat terrorism and answering this call is a legitimate issue if it is based on objectivity and not on a double standard such as combating terrorism in some places and ignoring its causes in others....  It is true that there is unprecedented sympathy with America in the wake of the terrorist attacks, but it is also true that there are several states.. like the Arab states. and superpowers like China, Russia and some European states.. whose sympathy collides with the necessity of differentiating between terrorism and the legitimate right of resistance; and also collides with the importance of relinquishing double standards and avoiding a hasty U.S. response and presenting conclusive evidence on perpetrators of attacks."

 

"An International Fight Against Terrorism"

 

Government-owned Al-Ba'th held (9/26):  "There is growing and deep international concern about any hasty U.S. military action... There are increasing calls for caution to avoid an unpredictable human catastrophe which might jeopardize world stability and security....  Any anti-terrorism campaign should be run wisely and cautiously and shouldn't be reactive, emotional or dominated by the United States.  It should be based on international consensus; therefore it can only be achieved under a UN umbrella."

 

"Israel Is The Only Beneficiary"

 

Mohamed Ali Buza, a commentator in government-owned Al-Thwara, wrote (9/26): "There are facts that raise suspicion about Israel's connection to the terrorist attacks in the United States.  They are quite important as they offer tangible evidence that might lead to the exposure of real perpetrators.  Israel is the sole beneficiary of what happened in the U.S.  Its insolent accusations of Arab and Muslim terrorism are meant as a cover up for its massacres against Palestinians."

 

"When War Is Imminent"

 

Fouad Mardoud, chief editor of government-owned English-language Syria Times, commented (9/23):  "The superpower is preparing itself for a prolonged and bloody battle with Afghanistan, and maybe with other countries....  How many Americans can predict the peril of invading a tricky and very dangerous territory like Afghanistan? The answer is very few.  Extraordinary, too, is the peril which Afghan civilians face: The U.S. has put forward an iron fist amassing the biggest military force since World War II....  And it seems possible that neighboring Pakistan will be harmed one way or another as a consequence of this war.  This horrible fact has sent several warning messages across the globe.  Calls for restraint and wisdom have been heard from almost every nation.  Even the European leaders' statements--which represented an unequivocal European green light for U.S. military strikes--call for the broadest possible coalition under UN auspices....  The United States, as any other country in the world, has the right to defend itself against external aggressors, be they hostile states or armed groups of terrorists.  But it would be unfair and inhuman to strike others based only on suspicion and without concrete evidence.  The current overwhelming outrage inside and outside the United States over the terrorist attacks should not make U.S. officials blind to the plight of civilians in other countries."

 

TUNISIA:  "A War Without Limit"

 

Co-editor-in-chief Noureddine Boutar wrote in independent, Arabic-language Ash-Shourouq (9/25):  "Military experts confirmed that the forces gathered by the U.S. for the 'Justice' operation would not be so huge, if it is only meant to strike Afghanistan and to capture bin Ladin and his group.... There is no doubt that the gathering of such a huge army as well as building global consensus is very suspicious.  It proves the worry of many countries about the real intentions of the United States and the planned objectives of its operations....  Arab and Muslim countries have declared their worry....  Iraq seems to be one of the target countries, which comes within the American-Zionist definition of terrorism.    What makes the U.S. intentions more doubtful, is the weird secrecy around the U.S. military operations....  What kind of terrorism does the United States want to eradicate? If it really wants to rid the world of terrorism, it should sue the Zionist leaders and divest them of nuclear weapons....  But it seems that the opposite is going to happen, because the aim of American 'justice' is to eradicate all the voices opposed to the United States by taming them and making them submit to the American-Zionist administration.  Hence, Iraq will be among the most important objectives of the United States.  And U.S. operations will threaten all Arab countries....  It would not be surprising if the U.S. struck Arab universities which have demonstrated against America and Israel!...    What the United Statesintends to do is very dangerous....  It will widen the circle of rancor and anger with the number of bombs and missiles with which it is going to strike Arab and Muslim countries."

 

"Chasing  Witches"

 

Director M'Hamed Ben Youssed held in independent French-language weekly Tunis-Hebdo (9/24):  "The world 'crusade' used by President Bush in his struggle against the rebels, means that a deep schism has been created between the United States and the Islamic world, even though Bush tried to remedy to the situation by visiting an Islamic site....  Will we witness from now onward and throughout the world, a pursuit of undesirable extremists under the pretext of 'American-UN legality'?....  From now on, the Indian sub-continent, equipped with nuclear weapons and made precarious by the Kashmir conflict, and a part of Central Asia are going to be the battlefield pitting pro-American against pro-Muslim Afghans....  .Russians, in particular the veterans of the red Army are eager to take revenge on Americans, who helped the Afghans in defeating them....  They foresee that Afghanistan will be more murderous for American soldiers than Vietnam...  This time the Afghan war will be different from the previous one.  The Taliban would not benefit from the solidarity of all Afghans, in particular from the dissidents of Commander Massaoud....  On the other hand, Pakistan, which used to be pro-Afghan, is bound to become an American ally....  Will the attack of September 11 allow the White House to benefit from oil and gas resources in the Caucasus region in addition to strategic positioning in the region?"

 

"Why The Cart Before The Horse?"

 

Editor-in-chief Abdelhamid Riahi said in independent Ash-Shourouq (9/20): "By trying to respond to Washington and New York's strike, the Bush's administration seems to put the carriage before the horse....  It has restricted accusations, only a few hours after the strike, by making up a list of suspects without revealing identities and proof of their culpability....  Terrorism should be condemned, because it threatens the peace and security of countries, but the American campaign against it is unclear and contradictory....  While the American secretary of defense says that bin Ladin's delivery will not spare Afghanistan an aching strike, President Bush announced at the same time, that it is not serious enough to strike an empty tent with a costly missile.  So what does America want?...  The absence of clearness makes the world ask many questions, such as why America delays revealing the identities and scenarios of these evildoers?  And if it does not have the answer, how come it hurriedly accused the Arab and Muslim world?  And if it has the answer and hides it for some reasons, why is it attempting to gather a coalition in order to achieve American objectives and not international ones?"

 

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:  "A War--Against One Man!"

 

The media reported the UAEG's 9/23 decision to sever diplomatic ties with the Taliban government.    Commenting on President Bush's speech to Congress, Sharjah-based pan-Arab nationalist Al-Khaleej held (9/22), "If we suppose for the sake of argument that what the United States says is true, and that Usama bin Ladin is behind the explosions which targeted New York and Washington, this means that one person stands accused, with a group of associates, although the American accusations lack until now proof and evidence...  Bush's speech to Congress yesterday reveals something truly dangerous:  He has committed all the military and economic potential of his country towards an 'unprecedented long-term war' and threatened to bring all the necessary war weapons to crush the network of world terrorism....  This is the source of the fear overwhelming the world due to the American preparations, because the title, 'The War against Terrorism' is different for Americans than for others.  According to America, it includes nations, peoples and individuals, some of whom practice terrorism while others exercise their natural right to self-defense....  What sort of war is the United States preparing and seeking an international coalition for, when the warring parties do not know their enemy or the battlefield...?  It is undoubtedly not a war against one man, called Usama Bin Ladin, but an American war which (the U.S.) wants the world to launch under its flag, to Americanize the world by force under the slogan of combating terrorism."

 

"Bush:  Islam Is A Religion Of Peace"

 

Semi-official Abu Dhabi-based Arabic-language Al-Ittihad's editorial (9/20) praised President Bush's visit to the Islamic Center in Washington: "Islamic countries and the Arab nation received President Bush's remarks with satisfaction, especially since the (coalition)...extends to many Arab and Muslim nations and touches them with its fire.  Islam is a religion of moderation which does not know extremism and bloodshed.  This is why all Muslim nations support the world coalition to uproot terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or other nations that host terrorists and provide them money and facilities to impose its will.  Terrorism has no homeland; it adopts a one-track logic. This is not only the logic of terrorists, but also of countries such as Israel that follow the same line of terrorism and violence....  The international coalition is therefore required to follow one standard in fighting terrorism, so that the campaign will achieve its goals in support of stability and world peace."

 

"American Media Fabricated Facts" 

 

Muhammad Al-Hammadi judged in semi-official Abu Dhabi-based Al-Ittihad (9/19): "Time will reveal all facts no matter how ambiguous they are.  The story of the five Israelis who celebrated the New York attacks and the subsequent expulsion of two of them, was heard by no one except a few Americans and the Israeli embassy in the United States and the American media...which ignored their odd deed.  This incident makes us wonder about double standards in addressing Arab and Israeli issues....  The media is a responsibility and a message that should not stand with or against anyone.  It is an objective provider of facts.  However, the American media proved to be selective, revealing what it wants and hiding other facts.

 

"The American media was not confined to this but fabricated other facts, when on the first day of the attacks it showed groups of Palestinians celebrating the New York explosion.  After a few

days we found out the bitter facts, when some news agencies confirmed that the footage...was old footage of Palestinians celebrating the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.  The Western media did not also reveal that 4,000 Israelis did not go to their work in the World Trade Center on the day of the explosion in response to a request by the Israeli embassy but instead concentrated on 18 Arabs who were on board the hijacked planes, considering them the main suspects in the Washington and New York explosions.  The next days will reveal more facts."

 

"CNN's Disinformation:  Images Of Celebrating Palestinians Was Gulf War Footage"

 

Hassan Madan remarked in Sharjah-based Arab nationalist Al-Khaleej (9/19):  "On the eve of the explosions in the United States, CNN aired footage of Palestinians in camps in the occupied territories, dancing and celebrating what appeared to be the New York and Washington explosions.  Many channels including Arab channels aired such footage and it was presented to Western public opinion as an example of how Palestinians and Arabs reacted to the tragedy.  Later, it has become clear, according to semi-confirmed reports, that such footage was not real, but was taken from the file dating back ten years during the Gulf War.  It was presented as evidence of how the Arab street reacted to what happened, which has largely contributed to igniting an anti-Arab and Muslim atmosphere in the United States and the West in general....  This was not part of an unprecedented hostile and inflammatory campaign against the Arabs and Muslims, but was the major cause of such a campaign.... This is what makes the call by President Zayid in his talk with President Bush so important: to wait and present evidence of the involvement of the targeted suspects before launching any military action."

 

WEST BANK:  "Effective Coalition"

 

Bassam Abu Sharif opined in independent, moderate Al-Quds (9/26):  "Arabs and Muslims must insist on ending the occupation before getting into any coalition.  This does not mean that fighting terrorism must be delayed.  On the contrary, this position stresses the necessity of ending the Israeli occupation so the coalition forces will be able to fight terrorism.  It must be clear that this is a legitimate demand based on international laws, which neither the United States nor Israeli have implemented. It is an historical opportunity for President Bush, who enjoys full authority, empowered to him by Congress. We say to the American President that it is his and the United States' last chance to achieve peace in the Middle East. The American Administration and the Middle East countries must not lose such a chance once again."

 

"Coalition Means Change In Policy"

 

Tawfik Abu Baker opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (9/26): "Israelis are worried of the possibility of Yasser Arafat and some Arab countries being included in a coalition sponsored by the United States to combat terrorism. The Israelis know that involving the Arabs can not be possible without a change in the position of Washington towards finding a just and lasting peace for the Arab-Israeli conflict.  There is no doubt that the United States will need the Arabs this time for the coalition. Therefore, Arabs must be ready to demand a comprehensive deal in which both parties [Arabs and the United States] help each other by considering each other's interests and just demands."

 

"American-European Responsibility Towards Israeli Extremism"

 

Independent, moderate Al-Quds editorialized (9/24): "It is clear that the opposition of Sharon to the Arafat-Peres meeting and the false accusations against the Palestinian Authority, especially against President Arafat, mean that the Israeli government is fabricating excuses and pretexts to escape the signed agreements. In addition, the Israeli government wants to hinder the implementation of the Tenet document and the recommendations of the Mitchell Report that lead to the resumption of the political process. Therefore, this reveals that the Israeli government is only concerned in defaming the Palestinian struggle, continuing the aggression and ignoring the political process in order to maintain occupation and settlements."

 

"Washington:  Lack Of Restraint And An Ambiguous Campaign"

 

Ashraf Al-Ajrami opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (9/24): "The Arab countries are not interested in participating in an American campaign:  First, because they fear the instability of their internal affairs and the possible public reaction. Second, because Arab countries are not sure whether the American attack will only target Taliban and Afghanistan or it will include other countries. There is fear that the American Administration might attack some Arab countries like Iraq. This time there is no reason for the Arab countries to participate in the any attack against any Arab country without any logical reason."

 

EUROPE

 

ALBANIA:  "The Hour Of Settling Accounts"

 

Medium-circulation, pro-government Koha Jond ran an op-ed piece by former head of the parliament's foreign affairs commission, Sabri Godo (9/26):   "The main problem for the Americans is to separate Islam from terrorism, eliminating any possibility of any governments or terrorist organizations to interpret this as a war of the West against the Islamic world.  President Bush himself visited a mosque in Washington and insisted in his repeated messages that the United States has nothing against Islam.  However, how will the Islamic nations react, when the TV channels display images of the bombardment?  It is in human nature to think about what happened yesterday, that is the terrorist acts of biblical dimensions that struck America on 11 September, and to start screaming for what it sees today....  Militarily speaking, the United States is alone in the fight against terrorism, having England along its side.  The European Union declared military support, but nothing has moved in terms of any military troops....     This does not mean that the Europeans are more accepting of Islamic fundamentalists whose sole goal is dominion over Arab countries from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean, under the flag of religious war.  There is no doubt that America will be able to solve the problem itself regarding the military area, but the implications would be less and the results quicker, if the entire world unanimously expresses its support....  Our government should cooperate with the neighboring countries in every aspect of the fight against terrorism and should try with determination to wipe out the slander network that is zealously wondering around Albania."

 

TURKEY:  "Toward Days Of Heat"

 

Hasan Unal wrote in Islamic/intellectual Zaman (9/27):  "It seems the first retaliation will be against the Taliban regime and Afghanistan.  What it is unclear is to what extent the operation will limit itself to the Taliban regime....  The Pentagon group, led by Wolfowitz, is insisting on moving against others, including Iraq.... Under the current circumstances and the international situation, it is likely that Powell's arguments will shape the upcoming operation."

 

"Why The U.S. Benefits The Most"

 

Huseyin Gulerce argued in pro-Islamic/intellectual Zaman (9/25):  "By the help of popular support from emerging nationalism, the U.S. administration will be able to overcome the terrorism issue, and it will be even stronger than it is now.  This will pave the way for designing the New World Order in the way that the United States always wanted...  The war against Afghanistan is also making the Russian influence ineffective, not only in Afghanistan but also on the Turkic republics....  The United States, by taking Afghanistan under its control, is going to be the major player in Central Asia....  America stationed itself in the Gulf with the excuse of the Kuwait invasion.  It is now about to station itself right in the heart of Asia."

 

"Listen America"

 

Ahmet Tasgetiren wrote in pro-Islamic Yeni Safak (9/25):  "I understand the pain and agony that the United States is going through, and I am against terrorism regardless of religion or faith....  Yet I do not think it is fair to put the blame on those who are being set up for this.  The Muslims still haven't seen a hard proof or evidence to support the accusations against Taliban and bin Laden...  I do not believe the Untied States intends a conflict of civilizations, either.  But there is a bare fact:  The United States is the 'boss' of this war and most of the countries to be bombed are Muslim countries....  The United States, despite the hawks' advice, better think more than twice.  Hitting the wrong enemy will only make the real one stronger."

 

"Terror Cannot Be Destroyed Via Terror"

 

Fehmi Koru argued in pro-Islamic Yeni Safak (9/24): "Responding to terrorism with counter-terrorism is a matter of primitiveness.  The world cannot give up the essential principles of law like no one is guilty until proven otherwise, and the right of defense for the accused.  Everyone has the right to a fair trial, including those terrorists..  George Bush and his allies unfortunately do not see that they are destroying international law."

 

"The Way To Combat Terrorism"

 

Emin Kazci wrote in ultra religious/fundamentalist Akit (9/24): "The United States is trying to redesign the world under the guise of fighting terrorism.  This is either because of ignorance or cruelty.  The way to make terrorism ineffective is to eliminate the results that the terrorist is seeking.  There will be even more terrorism if he feels that he has gained his objective..  We are entering into an unfortunate period where terrorism will gain more from the fight against it.  Terrorists now see that their expectations are happening one by one."

 

EAST ASIA

 

INDONESIA:  "U.S. Attitude And The Global Coalition"

 

Pro-government news weekly Gatra, in a column by Ibrahim Yusuf, argued (9/27):   "To move in-line with international efforts, we would still need to stick to our fundamental, free and active foreign political principles, and to follow the multilateral procedures under the supervision of international bodies like the UN and its affiliations.  Presumably, we need to avoid conflicting with other countries' unilateral acts.  At the moment, a view that humanitarian intervention and exercise of universal jurisdiction are necessary has been the rallying cry against countries or individuals under charges of human rights violations.  We had bitter experiences with East Timor, whereas, the problems in Aceh and Irian Jaya are still unresolved."

 

"Freezing Terrorists' Assets"

 

Independent Koran Tempo asserted (9/26):  "The experience the United States had before proved that they found it very difficult to trace terrorist cash flows.  Unlike the money earned from narcotic businesses, terrorism resources could be almost any official event--individual, foundation, oil sales--in short, it could be a legitimate business function that gives sympathy to terrorists.  Even if it could be detected, most likely it would be too late.  Many press reports mentioned that the Osama-led organization, called al-Qaida, is not a well-structured hierarchy.  Neither is an organization with well-organized bookkeeping.  Bush should learn a lesson from past experience and facts."

 

"How Would Declining Global Investment Flow Affect Our Economy?"

 

Leading independent Kompas pointed out (9/26):   "We still cannot foresee how lower  international capital would flow after the statement of President Bush [on frozen assets of Osama].  But this is going to be significant since the resources of the foreign direct investment are from countries like Britain, France, U.S., Belgium, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Spain, Germany, Canada and Switzerland.  After the September 11 tragedy, in addition to President Bush's intention to use the economy as a new tool of war, the desire [of ours] to get foreign investment would not be that easy.  It is not exaggerating to say that everything is going to be more difficult. Developing countries would increasingly fight against each another to win more limited investments.  In such a situation, we must take a harder look at ourselves.  We must show them that this is a country of feasible destination for investment."

 

"United States Of America:  Police And Judge All At Once"

 

Muslim intellectual Republika pointed out (9/22):   "Terrorist issues have made the U.S. a country other people fear.  The issues have made the U.S. the sole interpreter of the term terrorism.  The U.S. has led the world through a most dangerous door.   Each regime or each country now has the capacity to destroy their political opponents by charging they are terrorists.  In addition Bush's speech at the Islamic Center in Washington which indicated that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism made Muslim countries give Bush their empathy and give the United States an open passage, with a hammer, to do anything as the world's judge.  The U.S. policy to attack Afghanistan, assumed to have sheltered Usama, can also be seen as part of the violence itself.   Even if Usama, after strong evidence, was proven responsible for the tragedy, it would not be appropriate for the United States to attack Afghanistan.  Unless, the United States had a concealed program: rubbing the state of Afghanistan off the face at the earth, or, replacing the ruling regime."

 

"'Carrot' And 'Gift' From The United States"

 

Independent afternoon daily Sinar Harapan commented (9/22):   "Among the results of President Megawati's visit to the United States was assistance worth over $1 billion to cope with numerous needs and U.S. military assistance to Indonesia.  Now, the U.S. desperately needs Indonesia, a country with the largest Muslim population in the world, to combat terrorism.  But, it is possible that the United States would fight back against us, for example, if they see us violate human rights, as in the case of East Timor.  No matter the term, carrot or gift, we continue to appreciate the response of President Bush to Indonesia's economic difficulties."              

 

"Global Solidarity"

 

Independent Media Indonesia (9/23) commented: "We have no idea whether Usama bin Ladin, which the United States has determined is the prime suspect, was behind the incident in New York.  We also do not know whether Usama was happy or cried deploring these actions. What is obvious is that the United States is in fury....  What matters now is that the WTC catastrophe is no longer confined to a grudge between the U.S. and Usama. Washington is consolidating a global alliance in the name of a war against terrorism.  Usama [to some extent] also manages to consolidate a global alliance in the name of Islam.  A U.S. attack on Afghanistan would anger the Islamic world. Solidarity generally takes sides with the weaker party.... But if a war between the U.S. and Afghanistan drags on with neither side winning, which one of them deserves the global humanitarian sympathy? This is where the complexity lies.  A solidarity considered neutral is one in the name of humanity.  When solidarity emerges in the name of a primordial principle, be it ethnicity, religion or origin, then dialogue would buried and the world would plunge into a quagmire of grudges."

 

"Carrot And Stick A La The U.S."

 

Muslim intellectual Republika commented (9/21):   "Surely, we condemned the terrorist acts, and this is also what the elite of the country emphasized.  We also agreed to bolster all our powers together against terrorism.  Furthermore, we also paid condolence for the U.S. tragedy which took innocent victims.  Our question is whether the U.S. retaliatory act, if it were to occur, against Afghanistan--which has been considered sheltering Usama bin Ladin--could eradicate terrorism.  Would the chasing of Osama then win justification before the United States is able to show evidence, in an authentic and transparent manner, that this person is behind all these international terrorist acts. We hope, therefore, that President Megawati, now in the United States, would convey the disappointment of Muslims with the U.S. double standard.  The country should not exercise a double standard for applying the carrot and stick."

 

MALAYSIA:  "They Are lies"

 

The government-influenced English-language New Straits Times editorialized (9/26): "The U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur has denied news reports that the United States has branded Malaysia as a country that harbors terrorists.  It has also denied that Malaysia has been asked by the US to turn over its citizens involve in terrorist activities.  Similarly, Malaysians seamen are not barred from disembarking at American ports.  This is good news and it sets the record straight.  However, these reports have done a lot of damage to Malaysia's image in countries abroad.  They have also caused anguish and consternation among Malaysians.  They evoked reactions from the government.  Aggression and terrorism should be recognized and fought against for what it stand and should not be associated with Islam or the Muslim community. This is something that US President George W. Bush has acknowledged.  We have always co-operated with the international community when it comes to fighting crime.  We condemn the terrorist attacks on the US and share its pain over the loss of innocent lives.  For all the efforts we have spent over decades in bringing progress and prosperity to our people, we certainly will not allow any aggressor to transgress on our achievements and our stable administration."

 

"Bush Must Keep A Cool Head"

 

The government-influenced English-language Star opined (9/26): "It is encouraging that President George Bush is going to concentrate his war on international terrorism by targeting its financial empire which supplies the terrorists with the funds to carryout their destructive activities.  This is the right measure to take and is something, which all democratic governments are prepared to support whole-heartedly....  Unnecessary military action will only turn away allies and friends while uniting the various terrorist groups with evil intentions to destroy the peace and prosperity of the world.  So military forays must be as last resort and not the first.  This is the only way to convince the peace-loving and democratic nations that they must still follow the basic tenets of the rule of law and freedom epitomized by the United States.  These terrorist groups must not be allowed to succeed in their schemes to destroy all the values and things, which people hold dear.  Punishing those who give aid and comfort to these terrorist organizations should be a secondary and not the primary objective especially when it comes to military action.  Go for the masterminds first unless it can be proven that Afghanistan or any other government is directly involved in such terrorism.  President Bush must show the world that the pen is still mightier than the sword by using his government's resources and those of his allies to cripple the financial empires built up over the year to finance international terrorism." 

 

"Biggest Conspiracy In The World"

 

Government-influenced, Malay-language Berita Harian had the following opinion by staff writer Mior Kamarul Shahid, in a column, "From The Left Lane" (9/24):  "'The war against terrorism' is the slogan chosen by CNN for the coverage of the attacks on the United States.  The television giant was fashioning public opinion by daily changing the title of its coverage.  While there is sympathy for the tragic event, there is no reason why the United States cannot be reminded of its arrogance towards the rest of the world.  CNN's slogans raise questions as to what is the meaning behind 'America's new war'?  Is this to show that the American military is using new military tactics or is that the United States will wage war against new enemies?  America should realize that the main job for America is not to attack Afghanistan or capture Usama 'dead or alive' but to investigate thoroughly and correctly which parties are truly responsible for the attacks.  If the superpower has a long list of enemies, it shouldn't dismiss the possibility that it could be someone else using the Arab people as scapegoats.  These people care only to make the United States hate Islam and destroy Muslim countries.  This would be the biggest conspiracy in the world."

 

"America Needs To Rethink Actions"

 

Government-influenced, Malay-language Berita Harian opined (9/22):  "In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it has been revealed that 4,000 Jews who worked at the WTC were safe.  According to an Arab diplomat, they never appeared at work on that fateful day.  So the question arises, what is the truth behind these Jews' absence from work that day?  Further strengthening the report is a newspaper article from Israel that reveals that the Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was not allowed to travel to New York City by the countries intelligence forces.  Did Israel know of these attacks beforehand?  Maybe the Arab terrorists were used without them realizing that name of Islam would be blackened?  America needs to be definite of their target, be it Usama bin Ladin or terrorists from the al-Qaeda group, there needs to be concrete proof.  It seems that there is no consideration for the civilians in Afghanistan whom would become victims of an American retaliation.  As a country that holds firmly to the idea that development and prosperity protects from oppression, Malaysia is not behind in supporting the international movement, headed by America, to counter terrorist activities.  But as in the views of the Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, no citizen or country who are innocent should face punishment.  There are other methods to deal with the terrorism problem, other than conventional warfare."

 

AFRICA

 

NIGERIA:  "Be Cautious, America!"

 

The Kaduna-based government-owned Hausa-language bi-weekly Gaskiya Ta Fi Kwabo (Truth is better than Money) (9/20), said in an editorial:  "We commend President Bush for his bold step in condemning violence against American Muslims by visiting the Islamic Center in Washington....  It is in view of this that we advise America not to rush into conclusions by attacking Afghanistan or any other Muslim country in response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.  America should have learned a good lesson from the Oklahoma bombing when Americans quickly rushed into the wrong conclusions leading to several violent attacks against Arab Americans, but as the world now know, it was Timothy McVeigh that bombed Oklahoma.  The acquittal of one of the Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie bombing is another good example.  If America had rushed to judgment by killing the two suspects in retaliation, it would have regretted the action later when the facts came out....  America and other developed nations should look far beyond the immediate urge for retaliation.  They should re-examine, and change those policies that have discriminated against the developing nations and helped promote terrorism.  As long as injustice is allowed to continue, there will be no peace....  This is an important lesson for everyone."

 

"Atrocious Tragedy"

 

The Kaduna-based government-owned New Nigerian opined (9/17), "The spontaneous reaction of President George W. Bush to the effect that America would hunt down and bring the perpetrators to justice is quite understandable.  We believe that terrorism is a heinous crime which must be condemned by all peace loving people....  If President Bush is pushed to feel he 'must do something quickly' like bombing Afghanistan to smithereens or taking the opportunity to finish the Gulf War and kill Saddam without establishing Iraq's and Afghanistan's complicity in this ghastly act then one gross crime would be compounded by another one much worse because it would have been committed by an organized government said to be governed by the principles of due process (as happened with Timothy McVeigh).... America knows the way to peace in America and the Middle East.  It is simple.  It should ensure equity, fairness and justice between Israel and the Palestinians.  Get Israel to accept  internationally agreed accords."

 

CAMEROON:  "America On The Warpath As Afghanistan Refuses To Extradite Bin Ladin"

Columnist Gerald Ndikum observed in the Yaounde-based moderate opposition English-language Guardian Post (9/24): "The United States moved closer to declaring war on Afghanistan....  A confident President Bush...enlisted the support of the Congress, the EU countries, Russia, Pakistan and most Arab countries in the fight against terrorism (as) U.S. grief had snowballed into anger....  Meanwhile the international coalition against terrorism widened at the weekend when the United Arab Emirates... broke diplomatic ties with Afghanistan.  All countries in the international coalition against terrorism have pledged to give the U.S. intelligence support but have not indicated their intention to join in a military campaign."

 

##